PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama targets middle class with new aid plans


BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 01:05 PM
Obama targets middle class with new aid plans
President seeks to offer some attractive options to taxpayers
The Associated Press
updated 1:08 p.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 25, 2010

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634000432910100000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Monday offered help for people struggling to pay bills and care for their families, appealing to a middle-class he says has been "under assault for a long time."

In a partial preview of a State of the Union address that aims to answer voter angst about the economy and reconnect with the public, Obama outlined the series of proposals from the White House. The product of a middle class task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden, the proposals will also be included in Obama's budget request due to be submitted to Congress next week.
Among the initiatives: a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; a $1.6 billion increase in federal funding for child care programs and a program to cap student loan payments at 10 percent of income above "a basic living allowance."

His initiatives also include expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and increasing aid for families taking care of elderly relatives. That program would also require many employers to provide the option of a workplace-based retirement savings plan.

Obama is seeking to offer some attractive options to taxpayers, mindful of the painful implications of the loss of a traditionally Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown. White House advisers see Wednesday's State of the Union speech as a key opportunity for Obama to recalibrate his message and reset his presidency after that stinging setback, which took away the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and put his main domestic agenda item, a health care overhaul, in doubt.

Obama and fellow Democrats are trying to regroup to stem more losses of congressional, gubernatorial and legislative seats in this fall's midterm elections. Obama's poll numbers are also off primarily because of the slow economic recovery and double-digit unemployment.

"Too many Americans have known their own painful recessions long before any economists declared that there was a recession," Obama said in remarks to the task force, gathered around a horseshoe-shaped table.

The president said that creating new jobs and reducing unemployment is the "single-most important thing we can do to rebuild the middle class." "I won't rest until we're doing just that," he said.

But, Obama said, "We also need to reverse the overall erosion in middle-class security, so that when this economy does come back, working Americans are free to pursue their dreams again."


The White House says the new proposals are aimed at just that the "sandwich generation" that is now struggling to care for both children and parents. The theme fits into the planned economic message of Obama's prime-time address to the nation on Wednesday, which promises to provide a sharper focus on jobs and is likely to cover financial regulations, energy, education, immigration and a push to change the political tone in Washington.

Under the president's proposals, families making under $85,000 a year would see their child care tax credit nearly doubled. Families making under $115,000 would also see at least some increase in their tax credit as well. Obama will also call for the allocation of $100 million to assist families caring for aging relatives by providing help with transportation, adult day care and in-home aids.

The initiatives also focus on savings, requiring employers that don't offer work-based retirement plans to enroll their employees in a direct deposit retirement account, unless the employee opts out. The cost to employers would be offset by new tax credits, and the administration says the smallest firms would be exempt.

Obama will also call for caps on some student loans, limiting a borrower's payments to 10 percent of his or her income, and forgiving all remaining debt after 10 years of payment for those in public service work and 20 years for all others.


Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35057966/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35057966/)

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 01:12 PM
Wow, that'll get the economy humming in a jiffy.

memyselfI
01-25-2010, 01:14 PM
This will wow that chick who wasn't worried about her gas and groceries anymore and that is about it...

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 01:32 PM
I'm not exactly sure what to think of an administration who's only only idea, the one and only thing they can come up with for a broken economy, is give away more free chit.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 01:37 PM
I'm not exactly sure what to think of an administration who's only only idea, the one and only thing they can come up with for a broken economy, is give away more free chit.Same BS with the Republicans. All they ever come up with is tax cuts, mainly for business's and the wealthy.

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 01:38 PM
The initiatives also focus on savings, requiring employers that don't offer work-based retirement plans to enroll their employees in a direct deposit retirement account, unless the employee opts out. The cost to employers would be offset by new tax credits, and the administration says the smallest firms would be exempt.

Heh, that almost sounds like requiring an employer to pay into some kind of market driven account to help offset social security defficiencies in the future.

What's that sounds like? ROFL

BucEyedPea
01-25-2010, 01:40 PM
We've under assault by our own govt! And he wants to bail us out of that? LMAO

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 01:41 PM
Same BS with the Republicans. All they ever come up with is tax cuts, mainly for business's and the wealthy.

Which history has proven works btw. I'm not sure if the history books have documented how printing money until all the trees are dead works.

sportsman1
01-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Yay He is going to give us all Aids!

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 01:48 PM
Which history has proven works btw. I'm not sure if the history books have documented how printing money until all the trees are dead works.Tax cuts only don't save an economy. If so, then why did we have a recession under Bush? He gave out $1.1 trillion in tax cuts?

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 01:51 PM
Tax cuts only don't save an economy. If so, then why did we have a recession under Bush? He gave out $1.1 trillion in tax cuts?

We didn't have enough of them.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 01:52 PM
Tax cuts only don't save an economy. If so, then why did we have a recession under Bush? He gave out $1.1 trillion in tax cuts?

Two wars?

:drool:

Chiefshrink
01-25-2010, 01:53 PM
Tax cuts only don't save an economy. If so, then why did we have a recession under Bush? He gave out $1.1 trillion in tax cuts?

Because the recession started in 99 due to the previous Clinton tax increases that finally were starting to be felt:rolleyes:

KC native
01-25-2010, 02:04 PM
Heh, that almost sounds like requiring an employer to pay into some kind of market driven account to help offset social security defficiencies in the future.

What's that sounds like? ROFL

Employers aren't required to offer retirement plans if that's what you are trying to imply.

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 02:14 PM
Employers aren't required to offer retirement plans if that's what you are trying to imply.

No, I'm implying where at once it wasn't considered smart to allow a person to put part of their SS money into a market driven account it's all of a sudden brilliant to force an employer to do it for him.

talastan
01-25-2010, 02:14 PM
I have no problem with tax cuts. They have been proven to help the economy. But the concern I have is where is this money coming from? People who are making more than 250,000? If it is coming from printing money then the tax cuts aren't going to do much good as the dollar just devalues more.

KC native
01-25-2010, 02:18 PM
Because the recession started in 99 due to the previous Clinton tax increases that finally were starting to be felt:rolleyes:

You need to go back and look at the timing of that recession. The recession was 01-03 and felt in the US from 02-03.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 02:19 PM
I have no problem with tax cuts. They have been proven to help the economy. But the concern I have is where is this money coming from? People who are making more than 250,000? If it is coming from printing money then the tax cuts aren't going to do much good as the dollar just devalues more.I've got no problem with tax cuts either. As long as there is something else that goes along with it. Tax cuts by theirselfs don't work. You need job stimulus, deficit reduction, slashing of government spending etc along with the tax cuts. hell, Reagan cut taxes, raised taxes, increased and lowered the deficit. Implemented new programs and cut programs all in the same term.

KC native
01-25-2010, 02:20 PM
No, I'm implying where at once it wasn't considered smart to allow a person to put part of their SS money into a market driven account it's all of a sudden brilliant to force an employer to do it for him.

There's a huge difference you are missing. Social Security is supposed to be a safety net. Retirement accounts are voluntary (you're stupid if you don't save but it's still voluntary).

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 02:29 PM
There's a huge difference you are missing. Social Security is supposed to be a safety net. Retirement accounts are voluntary (you're stupid if you don't save but it's still voluntary).

You're right. I was interpreting 'enroll' with 'contributing'. Never mind my rant.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 03:11 PM
Middle Class Task Force. Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Taco John
01-25-2010, 03:25 PM
Same BS with the Republicans. All they ever come up with is tax cuts, mainly for business's and the wealthy.

That is truly a problem. Republicans need to start talking about defunding the government with huge and permanent tax cuts across the board. Start with a 25% tax cut in 2 years. An additional 25% two years after that, and then work towards the total elimination of the Income Tax.

"We can't eliminate Income Tax! How would government pay for all the programs?!"

Exactly.

Hydrae
01-25-2010, 03:28 PM
So we get more credit for money spent to let others raise our kids while both parents work outside the home to support a decent living style? WOOT???

I really wish there was a way to get away from needing 2 incomes to survive these days. The costs to our society and our children from absentee parents will kill us if our government doesn't do it first.

RJ
01-25-2010, 03:42 PM
So we get more credit for money spent to let others raise our kids while both parents work outside the home to support a decent living style? WOOT???

I really wish there was a way to get away from needing 2 incomes to survive these days. The costs to our society and our children from absentee parents will kill us if our government doesn't do it first.




I agree with that, but we did it to ourselves and I doubt if it will ever go back.

On the plus side, if my income continues to shrink I might be able to afford to become a stay at home dad soon. The words "diminishing returns" come to mind lately.

wild1
01-25-2010, 03:44 PM
the "Targeting the middle class" headline is unintentionally true.

Garcia Bronco
01-25-2010, 03:46 PM
Same BS with the Republicans. All they ever come up with is tax cuts, mainly for business's and the wealthy.

George Bush and the Congress lowered income tax for 100 percent of taxpaying Americans.

Twice

HonestChieffan
01-25-2010, 03:50 PM
Same BS with the Republicans. All they ever come up with is tax cuts, mainly for business's and the wealthy.

Thats not true, the last tax cut impacted every tax payer. and we now have something like 50% who pay zero federal income tax.

That said, I believe this move by Obama will be huge, crops will be better, the middle class will feel all the pain lifted, and unicorns will graze on my farm in harmony with the saber tooth tiger.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 03:53 PM
George Bush and the Congress lowered income tax for 100 percent of taxpaying Americans.

TwiceSo? When 90% of that $1.1 trillon tax cut went to the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans, the middle class got screwed.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 03:55 PM
Thats not true, the last tax cut impacted every tax payer. and we now have something like 50% who pay zero federal income tax.

That said, I believe this move by Obama will be huge, crops will be better, the middle class will feel all the pain lifted, and unicorns will graze on my farm in harmony with the saber tooth tiger.

No, the last tax cut did absolutely nothing for me at all, just like the rest of bush's tax cuts, its main focus was the upper class.

But surely this strategy would work if it were tried again.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 03:56 PM
I've yet to meet anybody from the "Middle Class" that said Bush' tax cuts screwed them. But then again I don't hang out in moonbat circles.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 03:57 PM
No, the last tax cut did absolutely nothing for me at all, just like the rest of bush's tax cuts, its main focus was the upper class.

But surely this strategy would work if it were tried again.

Why do you hate people that make more money than you?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 03:59 PM
I've yet to meet anybody from the "Middle Class" that said Bush' tax cuts screwed them. But then again I don't hang out in moonbat circles.

My family was in the "lower" middle class at that time, so we may be the exception, even so, It is not as if the middle class was the target of those tax cuts in the first place.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 04:00 PM
My family was in the "lower" middle class at that time, so we may be the exception, even so, It is not as if the middle class was the target of those tax cuts in the first place.

So whats your beef?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:01 PM
Why do you hate people that make more money than you?

I do not hold anyone who makes more money than I in contempt, but that does not make me a believer in trickle down economics.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 04:06 PM
I do not hold anyone who makes more money than I in contempt, but that does not make me a believer in trickle down economics.

You believe in spreading the wealth around?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:19 PM
You believe in spreading the wealth around?

Actually, I do, I think a president should promise to make every man a king and should give every family 5,000 dollars when elected, all out of the pockets of the rich taxpayer. ;)

In reality, I am not an advocate in "Hueynomics", but I will never believe that the wealth's tax burden should be eased while the lower class pays the price. In the end, I suppose that the poor deserve more than some commodity cheese.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 04:23 PM
Actually, I do, I think a president should promise to make every man a king and should give every family 5,000 dollars when elected, all out of the pockets of the rich taxpayer. ;)

In reality, I am not an advocate in "Hueynomics", but I will never believe that the wealth's tax burden should be eased while the lower class pays the price. In the end, I suppose that the poor deserve more than some commodity cheese.

I'm sure you've seen those charts that show the top 1% pay X amount, the top 30% pay X amount and the bottom 40 % pay jackshit?

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 04:26 PM
Actually, I do, I think a president should promise to make every man a king and should give every family 5,000 dollars when elected, all out of the pockets of the rich taxpayer. ;)

In reality, I am not an advocate in "Hueynomics", but I will never believe that the wealth's tax burden should be eased while the lower class pays the price. In the end, I suppose that the poor deserve more than some commodity cheese.

What price is the lower class paying when a wealthier person's tax burden is eased?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:28 PM
I'm sure you've seen those charts that show the top 1% pay X amount, the top 30% pay X amount and the bottom 40 % pay jackshit?

I actually have not, but I would love to see some charts about the tax burdens comparing the Clinton and II Bush administrations.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:31 PM
What price is the lower class paying when a wealthier person's tax burden is eased?

I would imagine that it may heighten the gaps between the rich and the poor and eventually center the wealth to the top 1-3% of the population.

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 04:38 PM
I would imagine that it may heighten the gaps between the rich and the poor and eventually center the wealth to the top 1-3% of the population.

I respect your thoughts but would add the more laying around money rich people had the more they would reinvest it to make even more money. That means jobs, more tax revenue, etc.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 04:39 PM
I actually have not, but I would love to see some charts about the tax burdens comparing the Clinton and II Bush administrations.

Wait, so you are acknowledging that you don't even have a basic understanding of who pays taxes, and who doesn't, yet you have convinced yourself that you are ready to state an opinion on taxation? And argue for it? Wow, that's scary.

ILChief
01-25-2010, 04:44 PM
Wow, that'll get the economy humming in a jiffy.


It doesn't matter what he did, the haters would have a problem with it.

That's the partisan world we live in

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:46 PM
I respect your thoughts but would add the more laying around money rich people had the more they would reinvest it to make even more money. That means jobs, more tax revenue, etc.

In an ideal world I could see that happening, but, could this excess in wealth to the rich guarantee that this money were to be reinvested and eventually cycle back to the poor?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:50 PM
Wait, so you are acknowledging that you don't even have a basic understanding of who pays taxes, and who doesn't, yet you have convinced yourself that you are ready to state an opinion on taxation? And argue for it? Wow, that's scary.


No, I do have a basic understanding of the tax burdens within the United States, though I probably have not seen the exact chart that you're describing.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 04:53 PM
No, I do have a basic understanding of the tax burdens within the United States, though I probably have not seen the exact chart that you're describing.

It doesn't sound like you're all that enthusiastic about looking for it.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 04:55 PM
It doesn't sound like you're all that enthusiastic about looking for it.

I'll definitely give it a look if you shoot me a link.

mikey23545
01-25-2010, 05:03 PM
So? When 90% of that $1.1 trillon tax cut went to the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans, the middle class got screwed.

When the top 10% are already paying 90% of the taxes, that's the way the math works out, you retard.

Donger
01-25-2010, 05:06 PM
I'll definitely give it a look if you shoot me a link.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

Higher-income groups pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes because they earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and because effective tax rates rise with income. In 2006, the highest quintile earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes.

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 05:07 PM
In an ideal world I could see that happening, but, could this excess in wealth to the rich guarantee that this money were to be reinvested and eventually cycle back to the poor?

My guess is the wealthy don't hide their money under their mattresses. Even if they just put it in a bank at a fixed rate that bank can turn the money around for loans to those that want them.

Granted, just like in how a family's own finances should run if revenue is cut the same should happen to spending.

Our biggest problem is when tax cuts are enacted government spending actually increases at a larger rate. That's not the wealthy's problem, that would be your politicians.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 05:15 PM
My guess is the wealthy don't hide their money under their mattresses. Even if they just put it in a bank at a fixed rate that bank can turn the money around for loans to those that want them.

Granted, just like in how a family's own finances should run if revenue is cut the same should happen to spending.

Our biggest problem is when tax cuts are enacted government spending actually increases at a larger rate. That's not the wealthy's problem, that would be your politicians.

Okay, that makes sense, and this further supports my enmity towards the Bush tax cuts, it did not make any sense for Bush to cut taxes from the the previous administration and then substantially increase the spending, anyways, I believe that Bush should not have tried to correct a problem that was already solved to begin with.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 05:18 PM
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

Higher-income groups pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes because they earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and because effective tax rates rise with income. In 2006, the highest quintile earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes.

I agree that the burden is indeed more dramatic on the wealthy, but is there a way we can compare this to previous tax obligations in US history?

Donger
01-25-2010, 05:23 PM
I agree that the burden is indeed more dramatic on the wealthy, but is there a way we can compare this to previous tax obligations in US history?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 05:24 PM
Okay, that makes sense, and this further supports my enmity towards the Bush tax cuts, it did not make any sense for Bush to cut taxes from the the previous administration and then substantially increase the spending, anyways, I believe that Bush should not have tried to correct a problem that was already solved to begin with.

You'll never get an argument out of me that Bush was fiscally responsible. If he was going to fund a war he should have forced cuts in spending. Or tried. He might have but failed if he did.

That doesn't mean increasing taxes is a better idea. Especially when we are hell bent on sending labor overseas. Doing that just speeds up the problem in that for companies here to remain profitable they are forced to use foreign labor. The more it costs them to do business the more they look to find cheaper ways of doing it.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:26 PM
It doesn't matter what he did, the haters would have a problem with it.

That's the partisan world we live in

Isn't it funny how B.O. spent the entire year trying to ram down America's throat Obamacare, and 48 hours before his state of the union, he's concerned about the middle class? You moron.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:27 PM
When the top 10% are already paying 90% of the taxes, that's the way the math works out, you retard.

You just can't have a conversation with them. They insist on being dishonest.

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 05:31 PM
You'll never get an argument out of me that Bush was fiscally responsible. If he was going to fund a war he should have forced cuts in spending. Or tried. He might have but failed if he did.

That doesn't mean increasing taxes is a better idea. Especially when we are hell bent on sending labor overseas. Doing that just speeds up the problem in that for companies here to remain profitable they are forced to use foreign labor. The more it costs them to do business the more they look to find cheaper ways of doing it.

Yeah, and you'll never get an argument out of me that Obama is being fiscally responsible either, but speaking of outsourcing, would it be possible to incentivize job creation on American soil? Or would that move appear to be too protectionist?

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 05:35 PM
When the top 10% are already paying 90% of the taxes, that's the way the math works out, you retard.name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

Yopur facts are wrong. My facts are easily provable, yours are not. Google it for yourself. the top 10% of Americans don't pay 90% of the taxes.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:36 PM
name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

Yopur facts are wrong. My facts are easily provable, yours are not. Google it for yourself. the top 10% of Americans don't pay 90% of the taxes.

ROFL

KC native
01-25-2010, 05:39 PM
I agree that the burden is indeed more dramatic on the wealthy, but is there a way we can compare this to previous tax obligations in US history?

Don't waste your time with this line of argument. The RWNJ's love to trot out the rich pay X amount of income taxes but love to leave out the rest of the picture (social security/medicare taxes).

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:39 PM
Once you cut through all the O-Bot crap, there argument is this:

People who pay taxes should not have any political representation, and people who pay no taxes should have political representation. That's why the Constitution doesn't make sense to their moonbat brains.

Donger
01-25-2010, 05:42 PM
name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

Yopur facts are wrong. My facts are easily provable, yours are not. Google it for yourself. the top 10% of Americans don't pay 90% of the taxes.

You are correct. The top 10% only pay 71.22% of all income tax revenue. The top 25%, however, pay 86.59% of all income tax revenue.

BucEyedPea
01-25-2010, 05:43 PM
Abolish the Income Tax for One Year!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/plqRpveXmic&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/plqRpveXmic&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Donger
01-25-2010, 05:44 PM
Don't waste your time with this line of argument. The RWNJ's love to trot out the rich pay X amount of income taxes but love to leave out the rest of the picture (social security/medicare taxes).

Does not everyone pay virtually the same percentages of payroll taxes?

KC native
01-25-2010, 05:46 PM
Does not everyone pay virtually the same percentages of payroll taxes?

No, we've already covered this and I'm not going to rehash it with you.

Donger
01-25-2010, 05:47 PM
No, we've already covered this and I'm not going to rehash it with you.

So, who pays a greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes?

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:51 PM
It's high comedy watching O-Bots faking integrity and sincerity in all of their morally bankrupt ideas.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lies.jpg

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 05:52 PM
Yeah, and you'll never get an argument out of me that Obama is being fiscally responsible either, but speaking of outsourcing, would it be possible to incentivize job creation on American soil? Or would that move appear to be too protectionist?

At some point the public will wake up and force their elected officials to the same conclusion you and I both have already arrived at.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 07:22 PM
You are correct. The top 10% only pay 71.22% of all income tax revenue. The top 25%, however, pay 86.59% of all income tax revenue.As I said easily provable. but I still get laughed at, called an idiot and retard.:shake:

And people wonder why "real" discussions on the issues are a dying breed of theread in here.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 07:25 PM
As I said easily provable. but I still get laughed at, called an idiot and retard.:shake:

And people wonder why "real" discussions on the issues are a dying breed of theread in here.

15% difference. ROFL

Point still remains, crybaby. The "rich" that you demonize pay most of the taxes, while the shitheads that vote democrat don't.

Donger
01-25-2010, 07:32 PM
As I said easily provable. but I still get laughed at, called an idiot and retard.:shake:

And people wonder why "real" discussions on the issues are a dying breed of theread in here.

Well, I think that those numbers show that "the rich" most certainly do pay their "fair share" of taxes. Do you agree??

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 07:35 PM
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

Higher-income groups pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes because they earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and because effective tax rates rise with income. In 2006, the highest quintile earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes.

Thanks Donger, it seems like the Ellie Lights here just want to play games, be dishonest and then cry about it.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 07:37 PM
name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

.

Just for the record I was ROFL at this comment, because

Yopur facts are wrong. My facts are easily provable, yours are not. Google it for yourself. the top 10% of Americans don't pay 90% of the taxes

Yeah after Donger posted the link that you moonbats were to lazy to look for, you got "the facts" then you insult a guy who off the top of his head came up with a fairly close estimate.

Keep playing with yourself.

orange
01-25-2010, 07:37 PM
Well, I think that those numbers show that "the rich" most certainly do pay their "fair share" of taxes. Do you agree??

Maybe. That's their share of total taxes. What's their share of total income? And what about wealth (capital), which is even more important over the long haul?

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 07:38 PM
Maybe. That's their share of total taxes. What's their share of total income? And what about wealth (capital), which is even more important over the long haul?

Oh here we go change the narrative.

Pour me a cup of coffee while your at it, sleepy head.

Donger
01-25-2010, 07:40 PM
Maybe. That's their share of total taxes. What's their share of total income? And what about wealth (capital), which is even more important over the long haul?

No, those figures are actually just income taxes. I'd guess that "the rich" also pay substantially more capital gains than do "the poor," wouldn't you?

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 07:44 PM
Well, I think that those numbers show that "the rich" most certainly do pay their "fair share" of taxes. Do you agree??No, There is much more to take in consideration. Some of which orange and kc native have mentioned. Its not so cut and dry.

When the country was growing by leaps and bounds under Eisenhower we had tax rates at 90% for the rich. Did that kill the economy?

Donger
01-25-2010, 07:50 PM
No, There is much more to take in consideration. Some of which orange and kc native have mentioned. Its not so cut and dry.

When the country was growing by leaps and bounds under Eisenhower we had tax rates at 90% for the rich. Did that kill the economy?

Kill? I don't see anyone claiming that. But, unless I'm wrong, I think that tax revenues actually increased when that grotesque 90% rate was cut to something like 70% (by Kennedy, IIRC).

Funny how that happens.

Donger
01-25-2010, 07:54 PM
I found this to be interesting:

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Sounds most equitable to me. BRC, please note that the tax burden closely matched the wealth.

orange
01-25-2010, 07:55 PM
In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw that aired last week, Buffett took his "I'm not paying enough in taxes, and neither are my fellow billionaires" campaign to a new level, highlighting his contention that he pays a lower tax rate than all of his office employees.

He told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists." (You can see and read the whole conversation in the aptly-named WBW Post Warren Buffett and NBC's Tom Brokaw: The Complete Interview.)

In its new issue just out, Forbes quotes an email message it received from Buffett (#2 with $52 billion):

"So far only three close friends, all 400 members, have made the calculation for me. They all came up with results similar to mine but have no interest in being identified."

Forbes says it "couldn't pin down many other Forbes 400 members to a real million-dollar wager" but did get some quotes from the likes of Mark Cuban (#161 with $2.6 billion), George Kaiser (#26 with $11 billion) and John Catsimatidis (Tied at #220 with $2.1 billion).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/

Donger
01-25-2010, 08:00 PM
In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw that aired last week, Buffett took his "I'm not paying enough in taxes, and neither are my fellow billionaires" campaign to a new level, highlighting his contention that he pays a lower tax rate than all of his office employees.

He told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists." (You can see and read the whole conversation in the aptly-named WBW Post Warren Buffett and NBC's Tom Brokaw: The Complete Interview.)

In its new issue just out, Forbes quotes an email message it received from Buffett (#2 with $52 billion):

"So far only three close friends, all 400 members, have made the calculation for me. They all came up with results similar to mine but have no interest in being identified."

Forbes says it "couldn't pin down many other Forbes 400 members to a real million-dollar wager" but did get some quotes from the likes of Mark Cuban (#161 with $2.6 billion), George Kaiser (#26 with $11 billion) and John Catsimatidis (Tied at #220 with $2.1 billion).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/

LMAO

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 10:09 PM
I found this to be interesting:

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Sounds most equitable to me. BRC, please note that the tax burden closely matched the wealth.Source?

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 04:22 AM
I found this to be interesting:

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Sounds most equitable to me. BRC, please note that the tax burden closely matched the wealth.

Source?! Link?! Source?! Link?!

ROFL

They. Just. Can't. Be. Honest.

King_Chief_Fan
01-26-2010, 06:15 AM
ah yes, when one plan fails, come up with another,,,,,,,,,, this fraud has been exposed so badly. I hope America continues to wake up.

King_Chief_Fan
01-26-2010, 06:23 AM
15% difference. ROFL

Point still remains, crybaby. The "rich" that you demonize pay most of the taxes, while the shitheads that vote democrat don't.
thank you for that!
I (not all that rich) paid more tax than Joe Biden (democrat) did last year...close to 160K in taxes. The ass hats who want me to pay more can kiss my foot.

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 06:28 AM
thank you for that!
I (not all that rich) paid more tax than Joe Biden (democrat) did last year...close to 160K in taxes. The ass hats who want me to pay more can kiss my foot.

You'll always be outnumbered 100 to 1, thats why the dems demonize "the rich" because they know that the lazy and shiftless who pay no taxes will continue to vote for dems. It's repugnant and should be anathema to any person of conscience.

The problem is government waste and fraud--- spending. And anybody who can grasp the Laffer Curve knows that increased taxation = decreased revenue. But dems can't be concerned with that because the truth gets in their way of power.

InChiefsHell
01-26-2010, 07:35 AM
If Buffet doesn't think he pays enough in taxes, he can always send more. WHat a fuggin idiot.

Donger
01-26-2010, 07:37 AM
Source?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200324/200324pap.pdf

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 07:42 AM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200324/200324pap.pdf
Dude, that study ended in 2001 before the $1.1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush. I think in 9 years things could be different.

This paper examines changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the years
from 1989 to 2001,

Donger
01-26-2010, 08:00 AM
Dude, that study ended in 2001 before the $1.1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush. I think in 9 years things could be different.

This paper examines changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the years
from 1989 to 2001,

Tax cuts for the wealthy?

KC native
01-26-2010, 08:55 AM
Dude, that study ended in 2001 before the $1.1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush. I think in 9 years things could be different.

This paper examines changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the years
from 1989 to 2001,

ROFL This is exactly why I didn't waste my time rehashing this. The RW likes to be completely dishonest when it comes to analyzing tax structure.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 10:12 AM
ROFL This is exactly why I didn't waste my time rehashing this. The RW likes to be completely dishonest when it comes to analyzing tax structure.yeah and shtsprayer comes along with his misplaced laugh smiley like we are wrong, we are complete dipchits unworthy of even breathing air. But, when the facts come out he is the one who is wrong. It's so pathetic that the members of this board tolerates shtsprayer BS.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 10:13 AM
Tax cuts for the wealthy?You came at me with facts from 2001? Come on man.:shake:

KC native
01-26-2010, 10:16 AM
yeah and shtsprayer comes along with his misplaced laugh smiley like we are wrong, we are complete dipchits unworthy of even breathing air. But, when the facts come out he is the one who is wrong. It's so pathetic that the members of this board tolerates and endorses shtsprayer BS.

FYP and Yes it is.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:17 AM
If Buffet doesn't think he pays enough in taxes, he can always send more. WHat a fuggin idiot.

But why would he? He has no obligation to. He's just using his situation to exemplify that the current policy might not be ideal.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:18 AM
But, when the facts come out he is the one who is wrong. It's so pathetic that the members of this board tolerates shtsprayer BS.

Ignore him. Whether that's officially putting him on ignore, or just having the discipline to note his post, and not get riled. He loves to stir the shit, hence his former moniker, and he's really not worth the time or effort. Go debate your chair if you want to utterly waste your time -- at least you won't get riled up doing it, and you'll realize more quickly that it really is a complete waste of time.

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 11:06 AM
Ignore him. Whether that's officially putting him on ignore, or just having the discipline to note his post, and not get riled. He loves to stir the shit, hence his former moniker, and he's really not worth the time or effort. Go debate your chair if you want to utterly waste your time -- at least you won't get riled up doing it, and you'll realize more quickly that it really is a complete waste of time.

My money is on the chair.

Donger
01-26-2010, 12:22 PM
You came at me with facts from 2001? Come on man.:shake:

Did you know that "the rich" actually ended up shouldering a greater share of the income tax burden under the Bush tax cuts?

wild1
01-26-2010, 12:42 PM
Did you know that "the rich" actually ended up shouldering a greater share of the income tax burden under the Bush tax cuts?

that won't fit on a bumper sticker.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 12:45 PM
that won't fit on a bumper sticker.And neither will outdated statistical information.:rolleyes:

Donger
01-26-2010, 12:53 PM
And neither will outdated statistical information.:rolleyes:

Would 2003 and 2004 make you happy?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 03:51 PM
yeah and shtsprayer comes along with his misplaced laugh smiley like we are wrong, we are complete dipchits unworthy of even breathing air. But, when the facts come out he is the one who is wrong. It's so pathetic that the members of this board tolerates shtsprayer BS.

FYP and Yes it is.

But why would he? He has no obligation to. He's just using his situation to exemplify that the current policy might not be ideal.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mUamKzNZPiM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mUamKzNZPiM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 05:36 PM
TOTUS:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/01/26/obama-uses-teleprompter-for-a-10-person-meeting/